Background
I have been trying to understand how to read the Old Testament and in doing so I came across some writings by Scott Clark on the topic. In this article he says things such as:
I hear lots about the typology of the OT. That Jesus is the true and better Adam, the true and better ark and that God rescuing Israel from slavery points forward to our redemption in Christ from sin. I also know/hear, though not through a sermon series on Exodus (more through a Q&A or in a systematic), that people were saved the same way in the OT and in the NT. In particular, saved by grace alone through faith alone.
But what I wouldn’t hear is that Christ was the one who sent the plagues and led his people through the red sea. It was Christ who made the woman and conducted the wedding ceremony and who preached the gospel for the first time. That it was Jesus the mediator of a new covenant who was thundering at the top of Sinai. It would be said that God did all these things, and I guess one could deduce that because Jesus is God that it was him, but I guess it was also the Father and the Spirit? But I’m not sure if this is what is meant when Clark says that Christ did these things - I confess ignorance here that I don’t know how the Trinity should shape my understanding when I see in the OT references to God; I probably primarily think of God the Father and when it mentions the Spirit of God I think of the Holy Spirit. But if all references to God in the OT are referring to Father, Son and Spirit, then why does the New Testament place such a heavy emphasis on the Son when interpreting the OT? And not also on the Spirit? E.g. Philippians 2:10 it seems that “Jesus”, not the Spirit or Father, is placed where “me/God” was in Isaiah 45:23.
Furthermore, if we were going through a sermon series on Exodus it might be said that the Israelites eating manna and drinking from the rock points forward to us also being sustained by a miraculous provision of God, though not in bread and water but in his Son. That is, it would be understood (primarily if not only) typologically. Though it would not be said (unless only because Paul explicitly says it - but this hermeneutic wouldn’t be applied throughout) that they ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink AS US (1 Cor. 10:1-5)! And that this rock was Christ (in some way). It would only have been said that it pointed to what our redemption would be like or that this was a type that pointed to our redemption.
To be clear, it would never be denied that in the OT Israel was saved (eternally) by grace through faith. But this fact would never come up in preaching through a book. I guess it would be viewed as somewhat alien to the text. Yes in Exodus it would be said that they were saved (temporally) from slavery in Egypt and this occurred through God’s gracious activity and through their trust in him. But this would only be linked as a type and pointer to God’s gracious salvation of us in Christ.
I was reading a TGC article and David Murray said the following which seems to pick up on what I’m not used to hearing:
Question
Does anyone know of any books that explain this way of reading and understanding the OT, at more than just a typological level or referring generally to God but at a substantial level with Christ himself as an active participant? In particular, I’d love a book that defends and makes the case for why and how we read the OT in that manner (theory) and also a book or sermon series that demonstrates how to read the OT with a view to more than just typology (practice).
P.S: I'm not sure if this is the appropriate sub-forum to post this question. Though it seems that my misunderstandings and what I don't hear preached is likely linked to the conception of covenant theology.
I have been trying to understand how to read the Old Testament and in doing so I came across some writings by Scott Clark on the topic. In this article he says things such as:
- All this means that God the Son did not first appear in the history of redemption in the incarnation, but has been mediating the knowledge of God and saving his people for thousands of years before. This is how the Apostle Paul read the history of salvation and why he declared, “There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).
- Paul did not see only occasional types of Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures. Rather, he saw God the Son actively operating throughout Scripture. In other words, the unity of the covenant of grace is not merely typological but substantial.
- The writer to the Hebrews also saw Christ as the center of redemptive history. Much is made of the heroes of faith and of the quality of their faith in Hebrews 11, but not enough is made of the object of their faith. Moses turned his back on privilege in favor of identification with God’s people, because “He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt… ” (Heb. 11:24-26).
- More than looking forward to the incarnation, Hebrews also places God the Son at the center of the action of the story of redemption. Arguably, no place was more basic to Israel’s national identity than Sinai, and whom does Hebrews place thundering at the top of the mountain? Jesus, “the Mediator of a New Covenant” (Heb. 12:24).
- The one to whom we have come was there all along, with whom Jacob and Moses spoke “face to face” (Gen. 32:30; Exod. 33:11)
- Following the pattern established by Jesus and the apostles, we find that Christ is revealed by an extensive series of types (illustrations of the reality to come) in the history of redemption. Jesus and the Apostles, however, have clued us in to an even more profound way of reading Scripture whereby Jesus does not simply appear typologically, but as a pre-incarnate actor in the drama of creation, fall, and redemption.
- He was the agent of creation. John 1:3 says that “All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made.”
- It was he who made the woman, conducted the wedding ceremony, whom Adam heard coming in judgment in the garden (Gen. 3:10), and who pronounced the curse. It was also the Son who preached the gospel for the first time: “he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15) and who covered his people (Gen. 3:21). Read this way, this narrative takes on new depth. This is neither saga nor idle promise, for with this oath the Son solemnly committed himself to incarnation, suffering, and death in order to conquer the enemy. He did so again in the covenant-making ceremony of Genesis 15:17. It was he who went “between the pieces,” swearing a maledictory oath against his own life (Gen. 15:13). The mysterious figure with whom Jacob wrestled, and with whom he spoke “face to face,” (Gen. 33:20) was none other than the Mediator. That same person revealed himself to Moses as the “I Am” (Exod. 3:14; John 4:26; 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51, 8:12, 58). Not only was his incarnation illustrated by the blood on the doorposts (Exod. 12:7) but it was he who sent the plagues and led his people through the Red Sea. [cf. Jude 5]
I hear lots about the typology of the OT. That Jesus is the true and better Adam, the true and better ark and that God rescuing Israel from slavery points forward to our redemption in Christ from sin. I also know/hear, though not through a sermon series on Exodus (more through a Q&A or in a systematic), that people were saved the same way in the OT and in the NT. In particular, saved by grace alone through faith alone.
But what I wouldn’t hear is that Christ was the one who sent the plagues and led his people through the red sea. It was Christ who made the woman and conducted the wedding ceremony and who preached the gospel for the first time. That it was Jesus the mediator of a new covenant who was thundering at the top of Sinai. It would be said that God did all these things, and I guess one could deduce that because Jesus is God that it was him, but I guess it was also the Father and the Spirit? But I’m not sure if this is what is meant when Clark says that Christ did these things - I confess ignorance here that I don’t know how the Trinity should shape my understanding when I see in the OT references to God; I probably primarily think of God the Father and when it mentions the Spirit of God I think of the Holy Spirit. But if all references to God in the OT are referring to Father, Son and Spirit, then why does the New Testament place such a heavy emphasis on the Son when interpreting the OT? And not also on the Spirit? E.g. Philippians 2:10 it seems that “Jesus”, not the Spirit or Father, is placed where “me/God” was in Isaiah 45:23.
Furthermore, if we were going through a sermon series on Exodus it might be said that the Israelites eating manna and drinking from the rock points forward to us also being sustained by a miraculous provision of God, though not in bread and water but in his Son. That is, it would be understood (primarily if not only) typologically. Though it would not be said (unless only because Paul explicitly says it - but this hermeneutic wouldn’t be applied throughout) that they ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink AS US (1 Cor. 10:1-5)! And that this rock was Christ (in some way). It would only have been said that it pointed to what our redemption would be like or that this was a type that pointed to our redemption.
To be clear, it would never be denied that in the OT Israel was saved (eternally) by grace through faith. But this fact would never come up in preaching through a book. I guess it would be viewed as somewhat alien to the text. Yes in Exodus it would be said that they were saved (temporally) from slavery in Egypt and this occurred through God’s gracious activity and through their trust in him. But this would only be linked as a type and pointer to God’s gracious salvation of us in Christ.
I was reading a TGC article and David Murray said the following which seems to pick up on what I’m not used to hearing:
I’m massively encouraged by the church’s renewed interest in preaching Christ from the Old Testament, and especially by the increased willingness to see how Old Testament people, places, events, etc., point forward to Christ. This “types and trajectories” (or redemptive-historical) hermeneutic has many strengths. However, I’m a bit concerned that an overuse of this tool can give the impression that Christ is merely the end of redemptive history rather than an active participant throughout.
Puritans such as Jonathan Edwards were masters of balance here. In his History of the Work of Redemption, Edwards shows Christ as not only the end of redemptive history, but actively and savingly involved from the first chapter to the last. He did not view Old Testament people, events, etc., as only stepping-stones to Christ; he saw Christ in the stepping-stones themselves. He did not see the need to relate everything to “the big picture”; he found the “big picture” even in the “small pictures.”
Question
Does anyone know of any books that explain this way of reading and understanding the OT, at more than just a typological level or referring generally to God but at a substantial level with Christ himself as an active participant? In particular, I’d love a book that defends and makes the case for why and how we read the OT in that manner (theory) and also a book or sermon series that demonstrates how to read the OT with a view to more than just typology (practice).
P.S: I'm not sure if this is the appropriate sub-forum to post this question. Though it seems that my misunderstandings and what I don't hear preached is likely linked to the conception of covenant theology.
Last edited: